Review: Freud by R.J. Rushdoony

In this book Rushdoony discusses about the ideas of Freud from a Christian perspective. No doubt Christians would have concern with his ideas. The biggest thing I got out of this book is Rushdoony’s point that Freud’s biggest contribution was not explaining man in terms of unconscious forces or sex driven but rather his theme of explaining away guilt in such a way that man is no longer responsible for his or her sins before a God that he or she will have to give an account to one day. This is where Rushdoony’s strength comes in: his ability to cite people and their ideas comes into play when he documents people who was before Freud that proposed explaining man in terms of the unconscious and sex driven. While Rushdoony cites sources no later than the 1960s I think his analysis of Freud’s impact today still rings true. Rushdoony interact with some of the biographers who wants to paint Freud as a morally upright man, and also unmasks the real Freud. Rushdoony also points out that the followers of Freud has engage in a revision of his idea, in that while Freud did not think man can be changed (the goal is just observation and knowing man has a problem), present psychoanalysis is inconsistent with Freud’s original insight. Good critique. I love how Rushdoony’s critique is able to penetrate more deeper than just pointing out the nonscientific origin and status of Freud’s ideas. As always, Rushdoony is able to demonstrate that Freud’s attack on religion is not just anti-religious, but Freud is religious as well, of course in a Secular Humanistic fashion. Ever conscious of the dangers of Statism, Rushdoony also points out the ramification of Freud’s idea as undermining liberty and freedom as well: “If we think in terms of sin, we imply responsibility and hence restitution and punishment. If we think in terms of mental illness, we deny responsibility and make it a medical or psychiatric matter. As a poster widely circulated in the 1950’s stated it, ‘Mental sickness is no disgrace. It might happen to anyone.’ In other words, there is no responsibility. This means that man, not being responsible, has no true liberty, and hence not entitled to civil liberties either. He can be hospitalized indefinitely for crime and experimented on by psychiatrists. He has no rights” (43-44).